Arbitration is (can be) binding in the sense that nations sign...

Arbitration is (can be) binding in the sense that nations sign up to the New York Convention and agree to enforce arbitration decisions.

Arbitration is only really “binding” if it can be enforced. The good news is that the DRC is a signatory to the New York Convention.

The bad news is that the DRC does not recognise arbitration rulings in relation to immovable property.

Herbert Smith Freehills describes it this way:

“the New York Convention will not apply to disputes related to immovable property or on a right related to immovable property. This is a particularly significant reservation, as it has potential to bite, for example, on disputes arising from mining rights. Unlike the other three reservations, this reservation is not provided by the New York Convention itself (although not prohibited by it).”

What does this mean for these arbitrations? Honestly I don’t know. International arbitration is a giant mess of a rabbit hole and I know enough to know that I don’t know the answer.

I strongly suspect that in practical terms if AVZ wins at arbitration the next battle will be over enforcement (and that will be a case in the DRC courts because it’s about DRC law).